[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc081559-e6f5-7ac8-7ae1-3cfbbee51697@loongson.cn>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 11:25:40 +0800
From: zhuyinbo <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>, wanghongliang@...ngson.cn,
Liu Peibao <liupeibao@...ngson.cn>,
loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn,
zhanghongchen <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>, zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] thermal: loongson-2: add thermal management
support
Hi Daniel,
在 2023/6/12 下午10:22, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
...
>>
>> +#define LOONGSON2_SOC_MAX_SENSOR_NUM 4
>> +
>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_CTRL_HI 0x0
>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_CTRL_LO 0x8
>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_STATUS 0x10
>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_OUT 0x14
>
> Please use BIT() macros
I learn about that BIT() is generally used to describe the functional
bit or control bit or status bits of a register, but these register was
some different register offset and not some control bit or status bit
So using BIT() here seems a bit inappropriate, Do you think so?
Thanks,
Yinbo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists